Leaders of Sanctuary Jurisdictions Respond to DOJ Letters on Immigration Policies

Leaders from Democrat-led states pushed back after the DOJ warned state and local officials of possible criminal liability over sanctuary policies.

Governors and mayors in several sanctuary jurisdictions pushed back this week against demand letters from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi warning of legal action and possible criminal charges for state and local officials who limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Bondi’s Aug. 13 letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires.”

She added, “Individuals operating under the color of law, using their official position to obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts and facilitating or inducing illegal immigration may be subject to criminal charges.”

In her letter, Bondi cited President Donald Trump’s April executive order directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal agencies to identify sanctuary jurisdictions, pursue litigation, and examine conditions on federal funds.

In a post on X, Bondi wrote that “any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court.” She called the letters “a key step in our strategic effort to eradicate sanctuary policies from California to New York.”

Earlier this month, the DOJ also released a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, defining them as endorsing “actions and policies that materially impede enforcement of federal immigration statutes and regulations.” The list includes 12 states, four counties, and 18 cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Seattle, and San Francisco.

Newsom’s office formally responded on Aug. 19, citing constitutional protections and attorney ethics rules.

“The last time around, the federal government sued—and lost,” wrote David Sapp, the governor’s legal affairs secretary, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 ruling in United States v. California. “It is now settled law in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that California law limiting law enforcement coordination with federal immigration enforcement activities ‘does not directly conflict with any obligations that the [Immigration and Nationality Act] or other federal statutes impose on state or local governments,’” the letter said.

By Chase Smith

Read Full Article on TheEpochTimes.com